A person here has stated that there is 'no scientific truth'
This may or may not equate to: truth isn't knowable....

If you believe this then I have lots of questions for you (maybe more in the future)
1. Why teach... if you believe you can't know anything scientifically
2. What's your motivation... Knowing Love?
3. What other truth can we know besides scientific from your POV?

One reason for asking these questions is I've looked at epistemolgy... I could share my belefs (I stand on the protestant bible)

A person here has stated that there is 'no scientific truth'This may or may not equate to: truth isn't knowable....

If you believe this then I have lots of questions for you (maybe more in the future)1. Why teach... if you believe you can't know anything scientifically2. What's your motivation... Knowing Love?3. What other truth can we know besides scientific from your POV?

One reason for asking these questions is I've looked at epistemolgy... I could share my belefs (I stand on the protestant bible)

I'm going to assume that you are referring to my comments about the principle of falsification within science.

Since any and all beliefs and theories are held accountable to falsification what one claims to be "true" may not be absolutely true... Since it could be falsified in the future.

I think you've got a bit mixed up in attributing absolute truth = knowledge... There are things we "know" with varying degrees of certainty, (take the weather for instance), would that not be knowledge?...

It could rain today so I should take my umbrella with me

I believe I said somewhere before, (this topic has been touched in a few threads), in science we can arrive at "relative truths" in things that are "true" relative to the conditions that we experimentally tested them to be "true" at. Such a thing is not an absolute truth, and thus under your definition wouldn't equate to knowledge.

1. I don't teach so I see that question as irrelevant2. My motivation is merely a look at how science operates. Not really sure what "Knowing Love" has to do with it since Love cannot be shown scientifically3. There are absolute truths that come from absolute observation or absolute knowing... ie- I am absolutely sure that I have 2 arms. I can see them touch them, control their movement, and respond to pain via them, hence this is an absolute truth, since there is no base for falsification that I do not have 2 arms.

In the face of absolute truth, the falsification principle fails EVERY TIME!

Example 1 ~ 1+2=3, this will never change, and can therefore NEVER be falsified.

Example 2 ~ If I have two apples and three oranges, I have five pieces of fruit; PERIOD. This can never change, and can therefore NEVER be falsified, because two apples and three oranges will ALWAYS equal five pieces of fruit.

Two different examples, one metaphysical and one physical; both are examples of the scientific method, and both absolutely true! Neither can change, therefore BOTH unfalsifiable! Therefore the falsification principle fails.

One need NOT be cautious about absolutes! One should ALWAYS be cautious about truth claims that are invalidated (or untested and unproven) by the empirical scientific method (for example: macro-evolution).

In the face of absolute truth, the falsification principle fails EVERY TIME!

Example 1 ~ 1+2=3, this will never change, and can therefore NEVER be falsified.

Example 2 ~ If I have two apples and three oranges, I have five pieces of fruit; PERIOD. This can never change, and can therefore NEVER be falsified, because two apples and three oranges will ALWAYS equal five pieces of fruit.

Two different examples, one metaphysical and one physical; both are examples of the scientific method, and both absolutely true! Neither can change, therefore BOTH unfalsifiable! Therefore the falsification principle fails.

One need NOT be cautious about absolutes! One should ALWAYS be cautious about truth claims that are invalidated (or untested and unproven) by the empirical scientific method (for example: macro-evolution).

There is a science curriculum called "Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding" by Nebel. This curriculum is written/played out in such a way that we are teaching our children how to be scientists, how to conduct empirical science, but not filling their heads with laws, theories or facts.

First – You cannot use the empirical scientific method without Mathematics. Unless you have some new scientific method that no one else has ever heard of? Therefore science is not science without mathematics!

Second – Science deals with proofs, (absolutes) as well. To say it doesn’t, is to not understand the empirical scientific method. But I totally understand why the evolutionists that control most universities don’t like the fact that validation found in the empirical scientific method deals with proofs. If one understands this, one can easily conclude that macro evolution is nothing more than a hypothesis.

Third – Everything around us is mathematically descriptive, and it is exceedingly hard to find ANYTHING that cannot be broken down mathematically. Because all of this (around us) is mathematically descriptive, ANY science that intends to describe ANY phenomena is completely dependent on mathematics to do so. It is virtually impossible to overemphasize this point, and it is why Carl Friedrich Gauss called mathematics "the queen of the sciences." In fact, concerning scientific endeavor, Galileo Galilei noted that all the phenomena around us "cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures, without which it is not humanly possible to understand a single word of it."

Fourth – In the beginning of all scientific endeavors was mathematics. At one time, all of what is known as ‘scientific study’ was consolidated under a single category -- this category became known as Physics. From Physics, came Chemistry, from Chemistry, came Biology (etcetera… etcetera…). But Physics isn’t the origins of science. Physics is just the physical expression of the truest of sciences, and that ‘truest of sciences’ Mathematics.

First – You cannot use the empirical scientific method without Mathematics. Unless you have some new scientific method that no one else has ever heard of? Therefore science is not science without mathematics!

Second – Science deals with proofs, (absolutes) as well. To say it doesn’t, is to not understand the empirical scientific method. But I totally understand why the evolutionists that control most universities don’t like the fact that validation found in the empirical scientific method deals with proofs. If one understands this, one can easily conclude that macro evolution is nothing more than a hypothesis.

Third – Everything around us is mathematically descriptive, and it is exceedingly hard to find ANYTHING that cannot be broken down mathematically. Because all of this (around us) is mathematically descriptive, ANY science that intends to describe ANY phenomena is completely dependent on mathematics to do so. It is virtually impossible to overemphasize this point, and it is why Carl Friedrich Gauss called mathematics "the queen of the sciences." In fact, concerning scientific endeavor, Galileo Galilei noted that all the phenomena around us "cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures, without which it is not humanly possible to understand a single word of it."

Fourth – In the beginning of all scientific endeavors was mathematics. At one time, all of what is known as ‘scientific study’ was consolidated under a single category -- this category became known as Physics. From Physics, came Chemistry, from Chemistry, came Biology (etcetera… etcetera…). But Physics isn’t the origins of science. Physics is just the physical expression of the truest of sciences, and that ‘truest of sciences’ Mathematics.

Mathematics is, in fact, science!

Yes you cannot do science without mathematics

...however science itself is distinct from mathematics as science deals with the observed realities of the world whereas mathematics deals with abstract numbers.... If you try and claim they are the same you'd need to show how abstract numbers can be observed and empirical tested Yet to do so would be circular reasoning as the mathematical numbers being tested is the basis of the tests you try and use to confirm it.

Further the lack of observation and the Mathematical calls for "proofs" whereas this requirement is not required for science when evidence is only required.

The full quote from Gauss is "Mathematics is the queen and servant of all sciences" - Carl Friedrich Gauss.

Whilst all agree it is the "servant" of science, (since it underpins it), there are many who would disagree that it is the Queen, due to its non-empirical nature. Also I had thought that claim was already taken by Theology

It would really depend on what you claim "Science" and "Mathematics" to be, and it seems this is an unresolved debate, one which I do not intend to enter at the moment as it is trivial at this point.

First – You cannot use the empirical scientific method without Mathematics. Unless you have some new scientific method that no one else has ever heard of? Therefore science is not science without mathematics!

Second – Science deals with proofs, (absolutes) as well. To say it doesn’t, is to not understand the empirical scientific method. But I totally understand why the evolutionists that control most universities don’t like the fact that validation found in the empirical scientific method deals with proofs. If one understands this, one can easily conclude that macro evolution is nothing more than a hypothesis.

Third – Everything around us is mathematically descriptive, and it is exceedingly hard to find ANYTHING that cannot be broken down mathematically. Because all of this (around us) is mathematically descriptive, ANY science that intends to describe ANY phenomena is completely dependent on mathematics to do so. It is virtually impossible to overemphasize this point, and it is why Carl Friedrich Gauss called mathematics "the queen of the sciences." In fact, concerning scientific endeavor, Galileo Galilei noted that all the phenomena around us "cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures, without which it is not humanly possible to understand a single word of it."

Fourth – In the beginning of all scientific endeavors was mathematics. At one time, all of what is known as ‘scientific study’ was consolidated under a single category -- this category became known as Physics. From Physics, came Chemistry, from Chemistry, came Biology (etcetera… etcetera…). But Physics isn’t the origins of science. Physics is just the physical expression of the truest of sciences, and that ‘truest of sciences’ Mathematics.

Mathematics is, in fact, science!

Yes you cannot do science without mathematics...however science itself is distinct from mathematics as science deals with the observed realities of the world whereas mathematics deals with abstract numbers.... If you try and claim they are the same you'd need to show how abstract numbers can be observed and empirical tested Yet to do so would be circular reasoning as the mathematical numbers being tested is the basis of the tests you try and use to confirm it.

Further the lack of observation and the Mathematical calls for "proofs" whereas this requirement is not required for science when evidence is only required.

The full quote from Gauss is "Mathematics is the queen and servant of all sciences" - Carl Friedrich Gauss.

Whilst all agree it is the "servant" of science, (since it underpins it), there are many who would disagree that it is the Queen, due to its non-empirical nature. Also I had thought that claim was already taken by Theology

It would really depend on what you claim "Science" and "Mathematics" to be, and it seems this is an unresolved debate, one which I do not intend to enter at the moment as it is trivial at this point.

Abstract numbers CAN INDEED be be extended into reality and observed AND empirically tested! I provided examples earlier, but I’ll be more than happy to provide simplistic cases once again (so as to squelch any misconstruing’s):

First – The hypothesis; Gilbo has one (1) right arm

Second – We test the hypothesis by touching Gilbo’s one (1) right arm to insure gilbo actually has said right arm AND to insure that Gilbo doesn’t actually have TWO (2) right arms. We test to see that this one (1) right arm has an opposable thumb on the hand and not a big toe (thusly rendering it as a one [1] right leg). We complete further testing (i.e. insuring said right hand, of said right arm functionality is stimulated by picking up items, throwing items etc…) to insure said “one (1) right arm” is actually a right arm.

Third – We repeat the testing of Gilbo’s one (1) right arm to insure the findings are verified and validated (the inductive process); thusly eliminating all false claims of the erroneous falsifiability pseudo-principle.

Fourth – We have our findings reviewed by other scientists to insure the scientific community can validate and verify that we have empirically proven that Gilbo, in fact, has ONE (1) right arm. And if there are any doubting Thomas’s within the scientific communities, we can repeat said empirical scientific method to prove that Gilbo has ONE (1) right arm.

Conclusion: Although One (1) IS an abstract number, it can indeed be represented PHYSICALLY! Therefore One can be “Physically” added, subtracted, multiplied OR divided via the empirical scientific method And CAN be observed and empirically tested.

What I find as odd with this attempt to argue that the “falsifiability principle” IS scientific and mathematics ISN’T scientific is that the “falsifiability principle” is TOTALLY philosophical (as anyone who actually studies Popper understands), whereas Mathematics can be easily extended to the physical world; as proven by my above example, AND the below example as well:

I have One (1) apple, One (1) orange, and One (1) banana, which, by extension means that I have Three (3) pieces of fruit. Now, I could simply be making a hypothetical claim concerning above mentioned fruit, OR I can empirically test said assertion using the scientific method to prove that I have said fruit, and that each said individual piece of fruit equals THREE pieces of fruit!

First – My science team categorizes my fruit using the well-established definitions for said fruit.

Second – I photograph said fruit for the categorizing process.

Third – I compare said fruit, by observation, with other well established examples of the same. (Inductive)

Fourth – I touch, smell, and taste said fruit to compare it with previous examples of said fruit.

Fifth – I have Seven (1+1+1+1+1+1+1=7) blindfolded (physical) testers that touch, smell, and taste said fruit and document the results.

Conclusion to empirical testing of said fruit is: I have One (1) apple, One (1) orange, and One (1) banana

Sixth – I repeat the above test to further validate that the facts are proven (via induction).

Now, the entire hypothesis COULD have been falsified (hypothetically), had ANY of the steps revealed that One (1) apple + One (1) orange + One (1) Banana as equaling ANYTING but Three (3) pieces of fruit; BUT it didn’t! Further, this same 'absolute' will be NO different tomorrow, next month, or next year (etc…), as (1+1+1 will ALWAYS = 3). Therefore the fallacious “falsification principle” totally fails in reality (as extended into the physical world), whereas the mathematics is empirically proven (scientifically) in reality (as extended into the physical world).

Conclusion: Mathematics IS scientific and the Falsifiability Pseudo-Principle is not. Unless YOU can how abstract the Falsifiability Pseudo-Principle can be observed and empirically tested.

Further the lack of observation and the Mathematical calls for "proofs" whereas this requirement is not required for science when evidence is only required.

As an aside “Evidences” ARE “Proofs”. The two are interchangeable, therefore your argument fails on that poin t as well:

Evidence (Noun)1- Sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion.2- Proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime.

Evidence (Transitive Verb)Demonstrate or Prove: to demonstrate or prove something

Proof (noun)1- Conclusive Evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something2- Test of something: a test or trial of something to establish whether it is true.

Abstract numbers are abstract... Abstract by definition is non-physical. Hence by definition it cannot be observed, nor can you experiment with it. Do I need to quote the dictionary on this?

Yes you can observe one arm or two arms but these are not abstract numbers, they are just you counting observed things.. Counting observed things are not abstract numbers, you could build a giant plastic 7 but that still would not be an abstract number as all it is, is a giant plastic 7. Prof Craig also claims that abstract numbers are in fact abstract, and he claims this when deciding what supernatural cause could create the universe.

His options are- a disembodied mind- which can produce thoughts etc- abstract numbers- which produce nothing, as they are mere ideas

Now what observations can you make when number 3 is tested via stimuli? Nothing... Actually how would you test the number 3 in the first place... It is merely an idea a concept, something we use as a name for counting. It would be the same asking for a kilo of love or 10 metres of compassion, or how about 3 litres of hope. These are all names for non-physical entities, feelings, etc.

Yes you can attribute an object the number 3 however doing so presupposes it and hence cannot be "tested". Furthermore, the tests on the fruit merely test the fruit.

Now lets extend this to abstract mathematical formula, rather than simplify it to mere counting numbers... How can you observe mathematical formula? (And no I don't mean by writing it down, since to write it down would be to presuppose it's existence)... How can you do experiments on the formula? (notice how I say not testing the formula itself, experiments ON the formula since we do empirical experiments ON things, to test them).... Now remember as I said in order to scientifically test the mathematical foundations of science you would need to presuppose them in order to do science in the first place.. This is circular reasoning, and it cannot be refuted.

In mathematics, a proof is a demonstration that if some fundamental statements (axioms) are assumed to be true, then some mathematical statement is necessarily true.[1][2] Proofs are obtained from deductive reasoning, rather than from inductive or empirical arguments; a proof must demonstrate that a statement is always true (occasionally by listing all possible cases and showing that it holds in each), rather than enumerate many confirmatory cases. An unproven proposition that is believed to be true is known as a conjecture.

Abstract numbers CAN INDEED be be extended into reality and observed AND empirically tested! I provided examples earlier, but I’ll be more than happy to provide simplistic cases once again (so as to squelch any misconstruing’s):

First – The hypothesis; Gilbo has one (1) right arm

Second – We test the hypothesis by touching Gilbo’s one (1) right arm to insure gilbo actually has said right arm AND to insure that Gilbo doesn’t actually have TWO (2) right arms. We test to see that this one (1) right arm has an opposable thumb on the hand and not a big toe (thusly rendering it as a one [1] right leg). We complete further testing (i.e. insuring said right hand, of said right arm functionality is stimulated by picking up items, throwing items etc…) to insure said “one (1) right arm” is actually a right arm.

Third – We repeat the testing of Gilbo’s one (1) right arm to insure the findings are verified and validated (the inductive process); thusly eliminating all false claims of the erroneous falsifiability pseudo-principle.

Fourth – We have our findings reviewed by other scientists to insure the scientific community can validate and verify that we have empirically proven that Gilbo, in fact, has ONE (1) right arm. And if there are any doubting Thomas’s within the scientific communities, we can repeat said empirical scientific method to prove that Gilbo has ONE (1) right arm.

Conclusion: Although One (1) IS an abstract number, it can indeed be represented PHYSICALLY! Therefore One can be “Physically” added, subtracted, multiplied OR divided via the empirical scientific method And CAN be observed and empirically tested.

What I find as odd with this attempt to argue that the “falsifiability principle” IS scientific and mathematics ISN’T scientific is that the “falsifiability principle” is TOTALLY philosophical (as anyone who actually studies Popper understands), whereas Mathematics can be easily extended to the physical world; as proven by my above example, AND the below example as well:

I have One (1) apple, One (1) orange, and One (1) banana, which, by extension means that I have Three (3) pieces of fruit. Now, I could simply be making a hypothetical claim concerning above mentioned fruit, OR I can empirically test said assertion using the scientific method to prove that I have said fruit, and that each said individual piece of fruit equals THREE pieces of fruit!

First – My science team categorizes my fruit using the well-established definitions for said fruit.

Second – I photograph said fruit for the categorizing process.

Third – I compare said fruit, by observation, with other well established examples of the same. (Inductive)

Fourth – I touch, smell, and taste said fruit to compare it with previous examples of said fruit.

Fifth – I have Seven (1+1+1+1+1+1+1=7) blindfolded (physical) testers that touch, smell, and taste said fruit and document the results.

Conclusion to empirical testing of said fruit is: I have One (1) apple, One (1) orange, and One (1) banana

Sixth – I repeat the above test to further validate that the facts are proven (via induction).

Now, the entire hypothesis COULD have been falsified (hypothetically), had ANY of the steps revealed that One (1) apple + One (1) orange + One (1) Banana as equaling ANYTING but Three (3) pieces of fruit; BUT it didn’t! Further, this same 'absolute' will be NO different tomorrow, next month, or next year (etc…), as (1+1+1 will ALWAYS = 3). Therefore the fallacious “falsification principle” totally fails in reality (as extended into the physical world), whereas the mathematics is empirically proven (scientifically) in reality (as extended into the physical world).

Conclusion: Mathematics IS scientific and the Falsifiability Pseudo-Principle is not. Unless YOU can how abstract the Falsifiability Pseudo-Principle can be observed and empirically tested.

As an aside “Evidences” ARE “Proofs”. The two are interchangeable, therefore your argument fails on that poin t as well:

Evidence (Noun)1- Sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion.2- Proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime.

Evidence (Transitive Verb)Demonstrate or Prove: to demonstrate or prove something

Proof (noun)1- Conclusive Evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something2- Test of something: a test or trial of something to establish whether it is true.

Yes, but your entire premise falls apart at the fact that the actual fruit is NOT abstract. Each piece (apple, orange and banana) is representative of the number ONE (1), AND the culmination of each equals THREE (3) tangible items. And that, my friend, renders the remainder of your post moot. You would be correct if I were only using abstract numbers, but I was not.

Yes, but your entire premise falls apart at the fact that the actual fruit is NOT abstract. Each piece (apple, orange and banana) is representative of the number ONE (1), AND the culmination of each equals THREE (3) tangible items. And that, my friend, renders the remainder of your post moot. You would be correct if I were only using abstract numbers, but I was not.

It's been nice debating you Gilbo

Yes, but your entire premise falls apart at the fact that the actual fruit is NOT abstract. Each piece (apple, orange and banana) is representative of the number ONE (1), AND the culmination of each equals THREE (3) tangible items. And that, my friend, renders the remainder of your post moot. You would be correct if I were only using abstract numbers, but I was not.

It's been nice debating you Gilbo

I wouldn't call it moot, (there is still the circular reasoning at least ). However this debate really is pointless since as I said even mathematicians debate this stuff between themselves. Plus it doesn't really advance anything anyway, (well in my mind anyway), so I bow out

Yes, but your entire premise falls apart at the fact that the actual fruit is NOT abstract. Each piece (apple, orange and banana) is representative of the number ONE (1), AND the culmination of each equals THREE (3) tangible items. And that, my friend, renders the remainder of your post moot. You would be correct if I were only using abstract numbers, but I was not.

It's been nice debating you Gilbo

Yes, but your entire premise falls apart at the fact that the actual fruit is NOT abstract. Each piece (apple, orange and banana) is representative of the number ONE (1), AND the culmination of each equals THREE (3) tangible items. And that, my friend, renders the remainder of your post moot. You would be correct if I were only using abstract numbers, but I was not.

It's been nice debating you Gilbo

I wouldn't call it moot, (there is still the circular reasoning at least ). However this debate really is pointless since as I said even mathematicians debate this stuff between themselves. Plus it doesn't really advance anything anyway, (well in my mind anyway), so I bow out

Actually, it wouldn't be moot if we were simply discussing mathematicians theoretical debates... But, as we were actually discussing that which is NOT abstract, rather, we were discussing physical application (which IS empirical). Therefore your points ARE moot, due to your half of the discussion being nothing more than hypothetical. And, it does, in fact, advance the fact that the totally "abstract" falsifiability pseudo-principle (as it applies to the physical application of actual empirical science) is nothing more than hypothetical.

Actually, it wouldn't be moot if we were simply discussing mathematicians theoretical debates... But, as we were actually discussing that which is NOT abstract, rather, we were discussing physical application (which IS empirical). Therefore your points ARE moot, due to your half of the discussion being nothing more than hypothetical. And, it does, in fact, advance the fact that the totally "abstract" falsifiability pseudo-principle (as it applies to the physical application of actual empirical science) is nothing more than hypothetical.

I'm claiming it is abstract, you are claiming it is not.

Just arbitrarily saying its moot doesn't cover up the circular reasoning I cited, (nor the other points, but this is my main one). Prof Craig also makes the claim that the mathematical foundations of science cannot be scientifically verified, (when he discusses the things that are outside the limitations of science), since to do so would be to presuppose the mathematical foundations in order to scientifically verify it... This is not my argument, it is his and I am using to prove my point.

The only thing I heard it being, was that Karl Popper was imposing limits on what a scientist could claim... In that they require evidence, rather than making what they say as reality...

Old way of doing science =

1- View observation
2- Make up explanation
3- If it sounds logical then it must be right

With falsification (scientific method)

1- View observation
2- Make up potential explanation
3- Test potential explanation, (normally with only two conclusions- hypothesis and null hypothesis or if something other than these two occur then you need to revise the experiment or the hypothesis)
4- Test again
5- Hypothesis is supported, (but can be falsified with other data)

Mathematics is based upon axioms and definitions. Math isn't science. Math deals with mathematical proof, contrary to science which is based upon stochastic probabilities.

As with the examples of fruit and Gilbo's arm: you observe fruit (edit: or an arm). You do not observe 2, 5, 8 or whatever but you count it and say, hey I have a definition for that quantity being 2,5, 8 and whatever

Yes fruit is physical however you are not experimenting ON mathematics, (since we do empirical experiments ON things to test them)... You are merely using mathematics or demonstrating how mathematics is used. Such is not an empirical test of mathematics as to do your counting you need to presuppose mathematics, (as well as addition, and the abstract numbers you use).

It is the same when scientists induce mutations in mice... The onco-mouse is a mouse that is bred with mutations that allows it to form cancers for cancer study... This is merely a demonstration of mutation, rather an empirical test of whether mutations made things evolve

This is from wikipedia, (yes I know)

In mathematics, a proof is a demonstration that if some fundamental statements (axioms) are assumed to be true, then some mathematical statement is necessarily true.[1][2] Proofs are obtained from deductive reasoning, rather than from inductive or empirical arguments; a proof must demonstrate that a statement is always true (occasionally by listing all possible cases and showing that it holds in each), rather than enumerate many confirmatory cases. An unproven proposition that is believed to be true is known as a conjecture.